Bow Down to the King of Long-Winded Post Threads
It was great fun to hang out with Storm Shadow and his fiancee, who I've yet to come up with an alias for. Yinz are all right. I was offered, and immediately snapped up, the opportunity to be a groomsman for them. Wedding=not nearly soon enough. And Hunter Hearst Helmsley is the man. Someone get me his entrances musiks, "The Game" and "Bow down to the King" on CD immediately.Quick notes on the immigration issue:
The idea that we need illegal immigrants because they do work that American citizens won't do is misleading. It would be better to say that they do work that American citizens won't do at such illegally low wages. In a recent speech, John McCain offered to pay $50/hour to anyone in the audience willing to pick lettuce for an entire season, and when none of the assembled grad students and businessmen took him up on his offer, he smugly thought the point proven. I am searching for his email address right now. Hopefully, I'll have a new job by day's end.
The idea of amnesty for illegals is a bad idea for a couple of reasons. It's disastrous in the practical sense: unless they're talking about a mass amnesty, there is no way they're going to get ineligible illegals to register and voluntarily go home. Furthermore, the INS is still processing people from the last illegal amnesty twenty years ago. But most importantly, amnesty of illegals is a slap in the face to the rule of law (to say nothing of those who go through the long and tedious legal entry process). Maybe our immigration policies need to be reformed, but that decision is up to the men and women we have elected to represent us in Congress. In the meantime, some 11 to 12 million people have violated United States law by entering the country illegally. To reward them with citizenship is to devalue all American legislation, for it sets a precedent that if a group of people is large and vocal enough, laws can be disregarded and overridden, at which point any pretense of representative government becomes a shell around government via polling and mob justice.
My quest to become a Metroid person, backwards, is progressing nicely. Metroid Prime 2 is a terribly fascinating and engaging game. Play with caution.
posted by Face of Spades at 5:06 PM
28 Comments:
From a practical standpoint, making it harder for illegals to become citizens would be disasterous--see Europe.
John Judis wrote a good article on illegal immigration a few weeks ago.
See? No bombings involved! I need more political influences like you.
And yay metroid.
As far as I know, it is impossible for illegals to become citizens--the only way to do it is by entering legally, right?
Europe's problem has nothing to do with citizenship. The welfare states of France and Germany and, to a lesser extent, Britain, aren't really that strict about who claims benefits. I believe that in France, healthcare services are expressly available to anyone, citizen or no.
It is one of quite a host of problems affecting Europe, but that's a chat for another time.
France is widely regarded to have the best healthcare system in the world, so I would think their guest worker programs and xenophobia would be a better place to look for France's problems.
On a related note, I'm thinking about getting hammered tonight. You game?
Well, I have some dinner plans for the broo werks, and the rest is kind of up in the air. I guess it's up to the assembled mob. Where and when?
And somehow I forgot to come to the point of that last comment, which was that whether France's healthcare system is efficient or not, it is available to anyone at all, and so attracts poor immigrants in droves. Whether or not they become citizens is moot--they still arrive in huge numbers and still have no need to assimilate, socially or politically. That is the heart of Europe's immigration problem.
Right, they have no need to assimilate, so how does the US allow its 11 million illegal immigrants to assimilate without some kind of amnesty? You're right about the shit wages thing--labor reform would go a long way to improving our immigration system (and our economy as a whole).
My plans are also pretty up in the air. I'll no doubt start at the 'gaarden or 'works after I run a few errands, and who knows whom I might run into there, and I told Inappropriate Pete to give a holla if he's doing anything.
My point is that they're not supposed to. Registering 11 million new citizens is a massive funding/bureacratic nightmare. Trying to deport them all is almost as problematic. But acknowledging their right to stay is by far the worst option, for reasons I have already stated.
Firstly, I would recommend measures that make it more difficult for illegals to enter the country. A more secure border. With NAFTA and the like, there's enough security problems at the legal points of entry, let alone the unmanned parts of the border.
After that, illegal aliens should be deported when found. It's not perfect, but it beats imprisonment and definitely beats amnesty. Simultaneously, businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens should be, at the very least, fined heavily, maybe putting a dent in the huge costs incurred by deportations.
This would probably never happen. But barring that, I'd be happier with the status quo than amnesty. The government will continue to ignore the problem, but at least it will not acknowledge that its laws are pointless.
Registering 11 million new citizens would be waaay cheaper and easier than deporting them; not only would tracking down and shipping out illegals be expensive, but that would create a massive labor shortage. A more secure border is all well and good, but supply and demand being as they are it wouldn't do much good, and might just make things worth (as the article pointed out). Fining employers of illegals sounds pretty reasonable, but good luck slipping that one past the GOP. Frankly, the status quo isn't all that bad. I'm pretty happy the Dems killed the bill.
Oh man. This is the first I've seen of this topic and it's already generated 8 comments. I'm hoping it can rival Sgt' Slaughter's abortion debate of which Greg Valentine's comment citing a Poswalt joke was deleted.
Holy shit, that abortion debate metastasized something fierce. Wow.
Now, I wasn't talking about a massive search-and-deport witch hunt--aside from being political suicide for anyone involved, it would create a labor shortage, as you said. So, perhaps a loosening of immigration restrictions is in order, to increase the flow of legal immigrants into our country.
But, when illegals are found, they should be deported, because entering this country outside the legal points of entry without proper registration and all that is a CRIME, and should be treated as such.
If the guvmint ever decides to come down hard on illegal employers, that will be the most important step towards fixing the problem, but only if there are serious measures simultaneously taken to deport illegals when they are found. Otherwise, they'll be unable to find work and either starve or turn to crime, and then there's gonna be a whole shitload of Tony Montanas to be dealt with.
Unfortunately I was unable to hit the barz last night. But I did see whatserface the hostess at the BBW, that was pretty funny. She said, "Hi, Gerald!" and I said, "Reservations, three for Kennedy."
Should everyone caught speeding be arrested? After all, that's a crime too. Illegal immigration isn't, as John Judis pointed out in that excellent article, like other crimes.
Lauren was like, "He's not over 24 or anything, is he?" I said No, but he's married to the sea.
Firstly, I was unable to follow the link you sent me because it's only available to subscribers, so I haven't been able to follow those references.
Punishments for criminals are designed to fit the crimes they have committed. Deportation for illegal immigration sounds draconian, but what else can you do? Fine them? They're poor in the first place, and since they're unregistered they are very difficult to track. What's to stop them for fleeing? And besides, pretty much any punishment besides deportation will simply encourage all immigrants to enter the country illegally if they decide it's a less tedious/costly process than entering legally.
I agree. It's not like other crimes. But I say you have to go with the lesser evil here.
Tell her I put a girl in jail three years ago for statutory. That'll send her back a few.
Unfortunately, at this point illegal immigration is only a civil offense. I think it's punishable by deportion and possibly a fine.
Does anyone have figures on current legal immigration? Whatever they are, I'm convinced they're too low. It is quite clear that cheap labor is needed, and I am convinced that the labor ought to go to those who are willing to work cheapest for it, and that is almost always first-generation, poorly educated immigrants - legal or illegal. However, they've got to do it legally - they need to pay taxes on it (legitimately, with real SSID's and such), and they've got to be documented. Illegal immigration of, say, felons is common and troubling.
The solution I'd like to see is a massive expansion in the number of legal immigrants allowed in, coupled with renewed efforts to deport illegals already here. Border strengthening, of course, would have to go with it.
I'm not quite sure how politically feasible that is - what objections would we have from the left, the right, Mexicans, Hmong, etc?
Actually, Chubbles, that's pretty much exactly what I'd like to see. I don't object so much to their presence itself as I do to the illegal nature of the presence and the fact that most of them work for dirt. It's bad for them, and it's disruptive to the economy. Not to mention the taxes:gov't services ratio.
As for politically feasible, that's probably a pipe dream. Most left-of-center groups support amnesty, for various reasons, and there is comparable opposition to it on the right. Mexico will certainly be pissed off about taking back 11 million of their tired, poor, and huddled (Mexico would likely be pissed off about taking back eleven, period). Between a rougly deadlocked public and possibly peeved-off international opinion, Congress won't have the stones to make it happen. Prove me wrong, Congress.
The numbers on immigration are pretty hard to come by, it turns out. The US apparently accepts 600,000 legal immigrants annualy (link). 4 million illegals entered from October 2004-October 2005 (link).
The problems with illegal immigration are: security, public services, workplace safety, and, for many people, race. That fourth problem shouldn't be an issue in America and the government shouldn't worry about the country being overrun by Latinos.
Keeping potential terrorists, drugs, WMDs, etc. out should be the number one goal of our immigration policy.
Illegals tax public services, but their contribution to the workforce makes their economic impact a wash, if not a net positive.
Companies who employ illegals can get away with offering shitty wages and shitty working environments because they know their employees won't complain, and the government doesn't put nearly enough effort into protecting its workers anyway. If you increased funding to OSHA and strengthened labor laws, wages would rise and the demand for illegals would fall. (Also, fewer sliced limbs from meatpacking accidents means less strain on emergency rooms.)
I'd say avoid the punitive approach (beware the perverse incentives of criminalizing 11 million people off the bat) and instead strengthen border security (the Arizona desert is a particularly weak spot), increase the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and reform trade with Mexico--allow tariffs in Mexico to protect wages and small farmers there to decrease supply of illegals. It's tricky because the US will create 7.7 million low-wage jobs from 2000 to 2010, and someone's gotta take them (unless John McCain pays all the fruit-pickers).
Excerpts from John Judis:
"There are other laws, however, that reflect majority opinion about what is good for society, but are defied by large groups or communities within the society. Laws governing sex, drinking, and drugs fit this category. So, too, do laws defining legal and illegal immigration from Mexico. The continuing protests by Latinos and other Americans, including high officials of the Catholic Church, against the House bill that would make crossing the border without papers a felony is a clear indication that many Americans don't believe that the immigration laws are good for society. They might admit that the people they call "undocumented workers" have broken a law, but they would not say they have done anything wrong and should be punished.
...
"Prohibition was intended to foster a sober, industrious law-abiding working class, but by attempting to impose artificial standards on American life, it failed to cut down on drunkenness and led to the growth of organized crime. By ignoring the underlying reality that they are attempting to change, our immigration laws have also failed to achieve their desired effect.
...
"The outcry over illegal immigration inspired Congress to attempt to restrict the flow on the border. It dramatically upped spending on border control in 1986, 1991, and 1996. But the results were perverse. Illegal immigrants continued to pour across the border--now, increasingly, over the less regulated Arizona desert--but fearful that they couldn't get back into the United States if they returned to Mexico, began staying in the United States permanently. So the recent laws not only didn't stop the flow of illegal immigration, they also helped to create a permanent underclass of undocumented workers. The laws changed the reality in the United States--for the worse.
...
"That approach won't work--and, one would hope, will never be tried. The cost in police and prisons would well exceed whatever net costs Americans now pay for social services to illegal immigrants. The process of enforcement--like the process of enforcing Prohibition--would spawn new kinds of criminality, as well as injustice. And most important, it would provoke profound resistance among those who do not believe the laws themselves are good for society--these include large Latino communities and businesses that employ undocumented workers."
And boy, do I like fewer limbs sliced off at meatpacking plants...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You guys have started a whole debate about illegal immigration while residing in the Lehigh valley. Not really a hotbed for this subject. I want to see how you do living in Southern California for 18 months.
I don't even have a strong opinion on it. They aren't taking jobs away from me... but then, like McGrath says, I am educated beyond my usefulness and will be soon bartering my Master's for food.
Or more likely, going to France. That's some sweet system. You don't think Curry and I will take advantage of that? Bon voyage.
I was about to send a reply last night before leaving and the computer zapped itself. I am once again reaching my wit's end with this thing. Anyway...
As for your recommendations, we seem to agree on many things, except one: What do you propose we do with all the illegals already here? Security, as you say, should be our top concern. Are we to just ignore the 11 million already here and hope that none of them are felons or terrorists? And as far as crime goes, immigrant smuggling is already a serious problem, though moreso in the source countries than the destination, and among them, China more than Latin America. I don’t see what new sorts of crime will arise from deporting illegals.
By economically disruptive, I mean that employers of illegals are not subject to wage controls and thus have an unfair advantage over other businesses, not to mention being in a position to have an unnatural influence on market forces.
Prohibition was a mistake, sure, and Congress acknowledged this by passing the Twenty-First Amendment, repealing it. But it was still enforced right up until its repeal because, for good or for ill, it was the law of the land and had to be respected. So, too, must our current immigration laws. As I said before, I think the legal immigration process should be streamlined and made more efficient, and the quota should be raised. But the phrase “criminalizing illegals” is redundant. I don’t see much choice there. And deportation is the only penalty that makes any sense at all.
I live in Madison, WI, and lived in Chicago for four years. Madison, believe it or not, is quite a hotbed of immigrant activity; there is a sizable Hispanic population, some of which is employed where I am. Also, this is a veritable hotbed of Hmong activity - these are Vietnam and Post-Vietnam refugees, most of whom were relocated in northern agricultural areas. We have Hmong-English translation books for all the signs in the factory.
Beyond that, Danno splits his time between Philly and DC, right? Immigration kingdoms.
I went to college in North Carolina, which has a large Latino population ("Mexican" is actually a racial slur down there).
I really have no particular problem with the 11 million illegals here already because I don't see our immigration laws through same strict, legalistic lens you do. The problem with illegals is not that they have broken our immigration laws but that their largely poor and unassimilated into society. You'd solve that pretty much the same way you solve poverty anywhere else--by building another Brew Works in the most terrifying neighborhood in hopes of pricing out the riffraff. Kidding, you'd improve social services and labor laws but go after the real criminals--drug dealers, terrorists, etc.--rather than the poor ex-farmers who are here because NAFTA killed their livelyhood in Mexico. Again, you can't deport the otherwise law-abiding illegals without destroying the economy.
The economy will be fine. There are more than enough willing legal immigrants to fill the gaps left by deported illegals, as long as the process is streamlined and the quotas raised, as I said earlier.
Even the most well-behaved illegal presents a problem to society, not because of what they do, but what they don’t do. As one example, since they are undocumented and do not pay taxes, they are obligated to neither send their children to school nor pay taxes to support the schools, (many of which probably enroll illegals).
As for being poor, they’ll stay that way as long as they get paid dirt, and they’ll be paid dirt as long as they’re illegal. Minimal assimilation is mostly a matter of choice and/or ability: either they are unwilling or unable to learn English and become less culturally insular. Compulsory enrollment in elementary and middle school might help address the problem, but that would require citizenship and is also contingent on a functional public school system (another debate altogether).
I'm thinking of going to the Unpronounceable after practice tonight. Thoughts?
I could get behind that; I haven't been to the Funhouse in nearly 40 hours. Give a holla. Tonight at the Brew Works: dirty fucking hippies and not me.
Yes! You guys did it. You toppled abortion . A few more posts and you'll be able to take down the music scene debacle.
I'd repost Patton Oswalt's comment on abortion here, but I guess that has nothing to do with this, and I won't stand to have it misused.
With protests coming almost every day here, the question seems to be why give iilegals rights and allow them and their children to live and take advantage of a system. Well, as my girlfriend, who went to a predominantly Mexican school outside LA, tells me, few actually do. Most kids find it a big accomplishment to even make it through high school. Many don't.
Cheap labor is where most of those kids end up as well. So why not crack down on the employers who use them?
This ties us with the Music Scene Debacle, but I don't think we can claim victory over abortion because of the incredible lines-per-post average of that monster. But hey, however we wanna slice it.
I agree, Metal-Head. The thing is, I think all facets of the immigration problem are interconnected. Going after the employers without having a plan for the then-out-of-work illegals would be a dicey situation. We need a plan that will effectively deal with the whole nasty cycle simultaneously, with all the sprockets running true with the differential gear and so forth.
By the way, it is my new life quest to top Nick Nolte's mug shot.
Hey, I'll start bumping up the music scene thread anytime, if we want to go toe-to-toe on that one. There's some mudsliniging going on on Wibbling Ribaldry about that very topic, as always...
I'll mix in your comment on my baseball expose with this line of thought here... shouldn't Mariano Rivera be entering games with the Spanish version of Enter Sandman?
... too soon?
No, really, I think they are both to blame for being so generic. Come up with some a little more original than that. I remember going to a Pirates game at Three Rivers where the main source of entertainment was for them to blast ES while a cartoon image of a Pirate swinging his sword around (if that doesn't sound gay enough for you, I don't know what will) played over and over again on the jumbotron. It's just lame. Why can't someone choose Ace of Spades as their intro?
And yes, New Yorkers have nothing better to talk about, what with the Knicks and all.
Post a Comment
<< Home